\   \ 


PRINTED    FROM    THE    HARVARD    STUDIES    IN 
CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY,  VOL.   XVIII,    1907 


STYLISTIC   TESTS   AND   THE   CHRONOLOGY   OF   THE     Mtf'i^ 
WORKS   OF    BOfi:THIUS  v 

By  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

WHOEVER  undertakes  to  treat  of  Boethius  finds  himself  in 
illustrious  company.  Potentates,  churchmen,  scholastics,  and 
philosophers  have  busied  themselves  with  this  "  last  of  the  Romans." 
It  would  appear  that  but  little  remains  to  be  said  on  such  a  well  worn 
Bubject.  Much  less  does  it  seem  fitting  in  a  beginner  to  essay  that 
little.  Yet,  as  the  recent  researches  of  Usener  and  Brandt  and  the 
acute  suggestions  of  Rand  have  marked  an  epoch  in  Boethiana,  one 
may  hope  to  gain  still  further  insight  into  the  character  and  mode  of 
thought  of  the  author  of  the  Consolatio.  With  this  purpose  in  view, 
by  the  help  of  the  so-called  stylistic  method,  I  intend  to  examine  the 
writings  of  Boethius,  in  case  it  may  be  possible  more  accurately  to  place 
works  the  dates  of  which  are  not  yet  certain.  To  be  explicit,  I  hope 
to  show  that  the  De  Arithmetica  and  the  De  Miisica  should  be  placed 
neither  first  nor  together ;  more  definitely  to  place  certain  other  works  ; 
to  throw  light  on  the  authenticity  of  the  De  Geometria  and  the  De 
Fide  Catholica,  and  incidentally  to  test  the  value  of  the  so-called  stylistic 
method  in  determining  the  relative  chronology  of  an  author's  writings. 

For  a  definition  of  the  meaning  of  stylistic  method,  and  an  illus- 
tration of  its  application,  I  may  refer  to  the  well-known  work  of 
Lutoslawski,  entitled  The  origin  and  gi-owth  of  Plato'' s  logic  tenth  an 
account  of  Plato's  style  and  of  the  chronology  of  his  wntings,  1897. 
Lutoslawski  applies  five  hundred  tests,  comprising  more  than  fifty-eight 
thousand  instances.  The  tests  are  of  various  sorts,  such  as  the  relative 
frequency  of  hiatus  and  of  synonymous  expressions  in  works  of  different 
periods.  Lutoslawski  prefaces  his  conclusions  with  certain  principles 
which  he  contends  must  hold  good  in  all  such  investigations.  As  these 
principles  practically  coincide  with  my  own,  evolved  independently, — 
for  I  purposely  did  not  read  the  book  till  my  investigation  was  finished 
—  I  cite  the  most  important  of  them. 


2G5612 


124  Arthur  Pate Ji  McKinlay 

1.  The  method  is  of  Httle  value  in  works  of  but  few  pages  in  length. 

2.  The  method  is  of  little  value  unless  corroborated  by  considera- 
tions other  than  stylistic. 

3.  Synonyms  are  the  best  tests. 

4.  Of  two  works,  the  one  which  agrees  in  more  criteria  with  a  third 
work  whose  date  is  fixed,  more  nearly  coincides  with  that  work  in  time. 

Relying  on  these  principles  and  tabulating  his  criteria,  Lutoslawski 
shows  that  known  early  works  of  Plato,  such  as  the  Crito,  have  but  few 
points  in  common  with  the  last,  the  Laios,  whereas  the  Sophistes,  Politi- 
cus,  and  Philebiis  agree  with  the  Laivs  in  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of 
the  tests  used.  Hence  he  concludes  that  the  dialectical  works  come 
late  in  Plato's  career.     This  much  for  the  method. 

Anybody  who  has  read  Boethius  with  care  will  have  observed  two 
marked  characteristics  of  his  style.  The  first  of  these  is  the  prevalence 
of  various  constructions,  due,  apparently,  to  the  influence  of  his  trans- 
lations from  the  Greek.  As  a  large  portion  of  Boethius's  works  consists 
of  translations  of  Greek  texts  and  commentaries  thereon,  one  may 
naturally  wonder  to  what  extent  Greek  usage  influences  his  style. 
Some  light  is  thrown  on  the  answer  from  his  own  words,  CommentariP 
in  Porphyrium,  p.  71  a,  in  which  he  gives  his  theory  of  translation. 
"  Secundus  hie  arreptae  expositionis  labor  nostrae  seriem  translationis 
expediet,  in  qua  quidem  vereor  ne  subierim  fidi  interpretis  culpam,  cum 
verbum  verbo  exjjressum  comparatumfjue  reddiderim.  Cuius  incepti 
ratio  est  quod  in  his  scriptis  in  quibus  rerum  cognitio  quaeritur,  non 
luculentae  orationis  lepos  sed  incorrui)ta  Veritas  c.\[)rimenda  est."  That 
our  author  carried  out  this  purpose  of  a  literal  translation  can  be  seen 
from  even  a  cursory  examination  of  his  works;  for  traces  of  Greek 
usage  are  found  in  the  commentaries  and  other  works  as  well  as  in  the 
translations.     A  few  examples  will  suffice  to  illustrate  my  point. 

Qiiidcm-  .  .  .  autein   and   quuiein  .  .  .  vera  in  the  sense  of  \i.\v  .  .  . 


'  I  cite  the  works  of  Boethius  as  follows:  the  two  editions  wepl  'Eptx7]velai,  ed.  C. 
Meiser;  works  on  the  quadriviuni,  ed.  G.  P'riedlein;  Consoln/io  Philosophiae  and 
Opiiscula  Sacra,  ed.  Peiper;  remaining  works,  ed.  M(igne).  In  citing  the  works  of 
Aristotle,  I  refer  to  the  Tauchnitz  edition  for  the  first  part  of  the  Organon  :  to  Waitz 
for  the  Prior  a  and  Posterior  a  Analytica. 

'  As  shown  by  E.  K.  Rand,  Der  dein  Boethius  zugesehriebene  Triiktat  De  Fide 
Catkolica,  Jahrhii.lier  fur  Klassische  Philologie,  XXVI,  Supplementband,  p.  42S  ft. 


Stylistic  Tests  nnii  Chronoloi^y  of  the  JVor/vS  of  l^octhius      125 

%k  ajipear  very  often  in  the  translations  and  in  all  the  works  that  follow 
the  DiaUnri  in  Porphyriiim.  This  usage,  to  a  less  degree,  is  found  even 
in  classical  authors.  See  Cicero's  Toxica,  51,  65  (?),  95  (?),  and 
especially  60  :  atque  illud  qiiiJem  genus  causarum,  quod  habet  vim 
efficiendi  necessariam,  errorem  adferre  non  fere  solet;  hoc  auton  sine 
quo  non  efficitur  saepe  conturbat. 

Another  marked  Graecism  in  Boethius  is  the  use  of  qiioniam  ^,  quia, 
<///^^</ clauses  to  translate  clauses  with  on  and  ws  in  indirect  discourse. 
This  usage  crops  out  continually  in  the  commentaries  also.  It  is  so 
frequent  that  manifcstiim  qiioniam  (^Posteriora  Analytica,  p.  741  a),  or 
palani  qiioniam  {Priora  Analytica,  p.  667  d),  are  used  without  a  verb 
as  a  rendering  for  S^Xov  on. 

The  influence  of  translation  is  seen  also  in  constructions  that  follow 
comparisons.  Often  we  find  the  same  case  as  in  the  original,  that  is, 
the  genitive,  e.  g.  Aristotle,  Catci^oriae,  4,11:  tw  rr]v  /xev  twv  6/ii.oye- 
voii'  fxei^ova  eli/at,  to  Be  eAarrov  tu)v  6fx.oyevCi)v.  Cf.  M(igne),  ]).  2  lO  K  : 
eo  quod  hoc  quidem  sui  generis  maius  sit,  illud  vero  minus  sui  generis. 
Though  this  literal  transference  occurs,  yet  the  ablative  with  a  {a/>Y  is 
the  usual  construction,  whether  with  verbs  implying  a  comparison  or 
after  comparative  adjectives  and  adverbs.     Of  the  former  the  following 

is  a  good  example,    Ilept    Ep/x.7^V£tas,   10,  8  :    ravra   yap    iKCLVwv   Sta^epet 

TO)  fXT)  Ka66\ov  eivai.  Cf;  Meiser,  p.  14,  21  f. :  haec  enim  ab  illis  diffe- 
runt  eo  quod  non  universaliter  sunt.     For  the  construction  after  adjec- 


See  also  the  columns  under  quidem  .  .  .  atitern  and  quidem  .  .  .  zrro  in  my  table 
on  p.  138  below. 

'  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  origin  of  this  use  of  quoniam, 
quia,  quod  in  indirect  discourse.  For  a  review  of  the  subject  see  Schmalz,  in 
Berliner  Philologische  Wochenschrift,  1905,  p.  557.  Some  argue  that  the  usage 
comes  in  from  the  sertno  plebeitis,  others  from  the  Greek.  Probably  Greek  influence 
merely  accelerated  the  adoption  of  the  construction;  for  the  idea  was  inherent  in 
the  language.  To  illustrate,  there  is  so  little  difference  between  the  infinitive  after 
commemcro  and  the  construction  with  quod,  that  it  would  have  been  surprising  if  the 
Latin  writers  had  not  been  ready  to  make  a  free  use  of  the  latter. 

*  Concerning  the  origin  of  this  construction,  Roensch,  Itala  und  Vul^ata,  p.  452, 
thinks  that  it  crept  in  through  the  Christian  writers  from  the  Hebrew  idiom.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  the  discussion,  in  the  preceding  note,  of  the  quoniam,  quia,  quod 
construction  is  applicable  here  also;  for  as  the  Latin  ablative  of  comparison  contained 
the  idea  of  separation,  it  would  have  been  strange,  if,  with  the  increase  in  the  use  of 
prepositions,  a  {ab')  had  not  come  to  be  used  in  constructions  after  comparisons. 


126  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

tives  see  Porphyry,  Isagoge,  3,  16  :  *0  yap  av6p(oiro<;  irXeov  €;(ei  tov 
^(uov  TO  XoyLKov  Koi  TO  Ovrp-ov.  Cf.  M.,  p.  125c:  Homo  enim  ab 
animali  plus  habet  rationale  et  mortale.  This  use  is  frequent  in  the 
commentaries  and  other  works. 

The  influence  of  translation  is  further  shown  by  the  extraordinary 
frequency  of  idcirco  quoniam,  quia,  quod ;  idea  quo7iiat?i,  quia,  quod 
and  the  like.  How  Boethius  treated  the  Greek  equivalents  will  appear 
from  the  following  illustrations  :  8ta  to  with  infinitive  {Wtpi  'Ep/xT/vcia?, 
1,%z^  idcirco  quoniam  Meis.,  7,  31),  or  idcirco  quia  {^Com.  in  Por- 
phyrium,  3,  20  ^  M.,  p.  129  c),  or  ideo  quod  (^Sophistici  Elejichi,  5,  6 
:=:M.,  p.  ioi2d),  or  eo  quod  (Aristotle,  Topica,  8,  12,  8  1=  M.,  p. 
1007  a),  or  propterca  quod  (Porphyry,  Isagoge,  15,11=  M.,  p.  155  d)  ; 
TO)  with  infinitive  (Aristotle,  Categoriae,  6,  10  ^  idcirco  quod  M., 
p.  246  b),  or  eo  quod  (Aristotle,  Topica,  i,  i,  9  =  M.,  p.  911  b),  or  hoc 
quod  {Categoriae,  6,  1 1  =  M.,  p.  247  a)  ;  810  =r  eo  quod  {Topica,  4, 
5,  7  ^  M.,  p.  950  c),  or  propter  quod  {ibid.  6,  9,  9  =  M.,  p.  982  c)  ; 
SioTTcp  {ibid.  8,  12,  \(i  ^  eo  quod  M.,  p.  1008  b)  ;  SioTt  {ibid,  i,  i,  10 
■=:eo  quodM.,  p.  911  b).  These  collocations  are  so  frequent  that  we 
even  find  liru  turned  by  eo  quod  {Topica,  8,  10,  8:=  M.,  p.  1005  b), 
or  idcirco  quoniam  (Porphyry,  Isagoge,  2,  19  rrr  M.,  p.  100  c).  I  have 
collected  all  such  collocations  in  the  works  of  Boethius  and  find  that, 
to  omit  translations,  their  sum  approximates  one  thousand,  a  number 
which  sufficiently  attests  their  abundance.  Naturally  I  do  not  hold 
that  Boethius  originated  these  expressions.  I  wish  to  show,  however, 
that  their  frequency  is  due  to  his  Greek  studies.^ 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  Boethius's  Graecisms  is  his  treatment 
of  the  definite  article.  At  first  he  sometimes  omitted  it,  as  in  Aristotle, 
Categoriae,  8,  19  to  yap  vyunvuv  '^oiKpa.rrjv  tw  vo(T€iv  '^uiKparrjv 
ivavTLov  icTTLv.  Cf.  M.,  p.  278  d:  Sanum  namque  esse  Socratem  ad 
languere  Socratem  contrarium  est.  Sometimes  he  used  the  collocation 
id  quod  dicitur.  Cf.  Com.  in  Caiegorias,  p.  208  b:  in  eo  quod  ci  .  .  . 
ce  .  .  .  ro  dicitur;  Editio  prima  irepl  'Epfj.r)V€La<;,  p.  49,  11  :  in  eo 
nomine  quod  est  homo ;  and  again  T)e  Sy/iogismis  Categoricis,  p.  795  b  : 
in  Ciceronis  nomine,     I.ater  for  this  construction  he  generally  used  id 


'  This  is  all  that  is  implied  in  Rand's  discussion  of  (/uii/cm  .  .  .  vi-ro  {^Jahrbucher 
Jur  Klassische  IViilolo'^ic,  XXVI,  Supplementhand,  jip.  42S  ff.),  a  point  that  Stangl 
(^IVochenschri/i  fur  Klassische  J'/iilolo^ie,  1903,  p.  179)  seems  not  to  understand. 


Stylisfii   7\sts  and  Chrono!os;y  of  tlic  Works  of  lUn'tlnns      127 

quod  est.  Cf.  InirodNctio  ad  Sy//oi^ismos  Categoricos,  \).  763  it:  in  eo 
quod  est  Cicero.  On  this  matter  Boethius  himself  remarks  {Editio 
prima  ircpl  'Ep/i7;v£(.tts ,  p.  62,  17  ff.)  :  unde  Graeci  quoque  his  per  se 
dictis  verbis  aliquotieiis  adduiit  articularia  praepositiva,  ut  est  to  rpe- 
^etv,  Tov  Tptx^iv,  si  qiiis  enmi  dicat :  velocius  est  id  quod  est  currere 
eo  quod  est  ambulare,  in  illo  nominativum  iunxit  articulum  dicens  id 
quod  est  currere,  in  illo  vero  ablativum  dicens  eo  quod  est  ambulare. 
(See  also  below,  p.  147). 

These  illustrations  make  it  evident  that  (Ireek  idiom  had  great  influ- 
ence on  the  style  of  Boethius.  Consequently  it  is  rather  surprising  that 
Friedlein  should  have  been  uncertain  about  the  reading  of  the  manu- 
scripts in  the  Dc  Ariihinctica,  p.  S6,  1.  4  f.  :  quam  secundum  ad  [?]  (so 
Friedlein)  aliquid  speculamur.  For  we  often  find  ad  aliquid^  171^6%  tl 
not  only  in  the  translations,  but  also  in  the  commentaries  and  the  other 
writings.  See  Com.  in  Ca/i'i^-on'as,  p.  213  b,  and  especially  Sophistici 
Elenchi,  25,  4:  'O/Aotws  Sc  koX  iirl  tcuv  Trpo's  Tt,  Cf.  M.,  p.  1034  c: 
similiter  autem  et  in  ad  aliquid.  Here  the  preposition  in  accompanies 
the  expression  ad  aliqind. 

Among  other  striking  Graecisms  in  Boethius  it  will  suffice  to  cite 
merely  the  following.  The  impersonal  gerundive  governs  the  accusative 
case.  Sophistici  Elenchi,  34,  i  :  ttws  Xvjiov  tous  Aoyous  ^at  cruAAo- 
yto-Mou's.  Cf.  M.,  p.  1039  I! :  quomodo  solvendum  est  orationes  et  syl- 
logismos.     This  use  appears  frequently  in  the  translations. 

Again,  dpa  in  questions  is  turned  by  piitasne  {Sophistici  Elenchi, 
20,  6:  apa  olSas  ^  M.,  p.  1030  A  :  putasne  vidisti),  or  by  uf  pntas 
{ibid.  10,  10  =  M.,  p.  1019  c). 

The  participle  with  a.v  Xo.vQ6.voi^  the  participle  with  latebit.  Ibid. 
17,  19:     fJi€Ta(f>ep(Dv   av   Tis    Xavddi'OL   to.    ovofxara.       Cf.    M.,    p.    102SC: 

Transferens  quispiam  nomina  latebit. 

OvM  =1  neqiiidem  (not  ne  ...  qiiidcm).  Cf.  Aristotle,  Topica,  i,  4, 
5  =z  i\l.,  p.  913  A. 

oTL  TocrauTa^ws  =  qiiod  totidem  modis.  Cf.  Sophistici  Elenchi,  4,  2 
=z  M.,  p.  loio  a). 

Wherefore  it  is  clear  that  literal  translation  is  a  feature  of  the  style  of 
Boethius.  Still  he  was  no  slavish  transcriber.  His  object,  as  has  been 
shown  above, ^  was  accurately  to  convey  the  meaning  of  the  original. 

'  See  p.  124. 


128  A  rth  ur  Patch  McKinlay 

Consequently  he  was  not  at  all  loth  to  depart  from  mere  verbal  trans- 
ference, if  he  could  thereby  better  attain  his  aim  of  clearness.  His  use 
of  examples  attests  this  point.     Some  of  the  most  striking  are  : 

Sophistici  Elenchi,  4,  8  :    koX  to  irtpX  to  ivv-nviov  rov  *Aya/u.€/[Avovo5, 
oTi  ovK  auTos   6  Zeus   elrrev, 

'  St'So/Acv   Se   01  eu;(os   dpe'o-^ai.' 
Cf.  M.,  p.  loi  I  B  :  et  id  de  Niso  et  Euryalo  cum  Rutulos  vino  somnoque 
sepultos  intellexissent, 

Cetera  per  terras  omnis  animalia  somno 
Laxabant  curas  et  corda  oblita  laborum. 
Ilept  'Epixrjveux^,  p.  4,  7  :  KaAAtTTTros  =:  equiferus.  Ibid.,  1.  20  :  $iA<uv 
=:  Cato.  Ibid.,  1.  29  :  vyUva.  =z  cursus.  Ibid.,  p.  6,  28  :  KaAAias  = 
Plato.  Ibid.,  p.  17,  3  :  o-kvtcvs  =  citharoedus.  Isagoge,  p.  87  c  :  'H/oa- 
kXu^wv  :=z  Romanorion.  Ibid.,  'HpaKXeov^  =.  Pomu/i.  Ilepi  'EpfirjveLasy 
p.  5)  17  :  ovSe  yap  iv  toJ  fxv<s  to  vs  crrjpxivTiKov  =■  nec  in  eo  quod  est 
sorex,  rex  significat. 

From  the  above  illustrations  it  is  plain  that  the  style  of  Boethius  was 
much  afifected  by  his  Greek  studies,  a  result  which  one  might  naturally 
expect  and  to  which  Georg  B^dnarz  called  attention  in  his  article  {Z>e 
Boethii  Universo  Colore,  Pars  Prior,  18S3,  p.  32).  This  trait,  though 
important,  is  more  or  less  transient.  Graecisms  are  most  abundant 
in  the  translations,  less  frequent  in  the  commentaries  and  comparatively 
scarce  in  the  remaining  works.  This  is  doubtless  the  influence  of 
Boethius's  studies  of  Cicero.  For  example,  see  the  table  on  page  139 
under  qiioniain,  quia,  quod. 

There  is  one  further  way  in  which  the  influence  of  translation  made 
itself  felt.  Out  of  several  modes  of  expressing  a  thought  there  would 
be  a  tendency  for  the  translator  to  adopt  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
others,  with  the  result  that  out  of  a  number  of  synonyms  one  would 
prevail.     The  following  table  illustrates  the  point. 

1 


Dial.'  in  For. 
Interpr.  Isag. 
Com.'  in  Tor. 
Interpr.  Catcg. 
Com.  in  Categ. 


N.-ini 

£nim 

Namque 

211 

229 

71 

12 

70 

I 

98 

412 

6 

22 

212 

17 

212 

636 

125 

'  For  convenience  I  ailhcre  to  the  okl  icnuinology.     See  note  on  p.  155. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Cliyo}iology  of  the  Works  of  Boetliius      129 

We  see  here  that  luimque  is  fre(iuent  in  the  Dia!o.;i :  that  it  almost 
entirely  lapses  in  the  Interpretatio  Isin^o^i^iie,  a  fact  which  accounts  for 
its  rarity  in  the  Conimentarii  in  Pi>r/>hyrii/m.  It  ajjpears  more  fre- 
([uently  in  the  Inferprctatio  Catei^^oriarion,  a  fact  which  accounts  for  its 
frequency  in  the  corresponding  commentary.  The  predominance  of 
efiiiii  over  nam  in  the  translations  explains  the  similar  relation  in  the 
commentaries. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  tendency  to  use  one  synonym  to  the 
exclusion  of  its  competitors  makes  for  the  unification  of  vocabulary. 
There  is  another  feature  of  Boethius's  style  that  makes  for  the  opposite, 
that  is,  his  evident  striving  after  variety.  This,  next  to  the  effects  of 
translation,  is  the  most  marked  characteristic  of  his  style.  A  few  of  the 
innumerable  examples  I  have  collected  will  be  enough  to  enforce  the 
point;  a  {al>)  with  the  ablative,  the  ablative  alone,  and  quam  are  used 
after  comparisons.  Cf.  Com.  in  Ciccronis  Topica,  p.  iioia:  minus 
est  animal  rationale  a  simpliciter  animali.  Ibid,  c :  animal  maius  est 
homine.  Ibid. :  minus  est  animal  rationale  quam  proprie  animal, 
Compare  also  the  constructions  after  diipliis.  De  Arithinctica,  p.  162, 
15  :  duplus  a  (ab).  Il>id.,  p.  141,  11  :  duplus  ad.  Ibid.,  p.  165,  iS: 
duplus  with  the  ablative.  Com.  in  Categorias,  p.  218  b:  duplus(um) 
with  the  genitive. 

Item,  rursiis,  ampliiis.  Com.  in  Ciceronis  Topica,  p.  1166  a:  Item, 
causarum  aliae  sunt  non  spontaneae.  Ibid. :  Rursus,  causarum  aliae 
sunt  constantes.     Ibid. :  Amplius,  causarum  aliae  sunt  voluntariae. 

Tamqiiam,  quasi.  Com.  in  Porphyrin m,  p.  91c:  Fieri  autem  potest 
ut  res,  .  .  .  non  quasi  genus,  sed  tamquani  species  sub  alio  collocatur. 

Quoniam  with  finite  verb  and  accusative  with  infinitive  in  indirect 
discourse.  Editio  Secunda  Trepl  'Ep/xT;vetas,  p.  362,  iSf.  :  Siquis  dicat 
Socratem  animal  esse.     Siquis  praedicet  quoniam  Socrates  bipes  est. 

Ac,  atquc,  et,  que.  Com.  in  PorpJiyriuin,  p.  134c:  Itemque  species 
ac  differentia  et  proprium  atque  accidens.^ 

Therefore,  to  sum  up  the  foregoing  points,  any  stylistic  study  of 
Boethius  must  take  into  account  two  marked  influences  on  his  style  — 
his  methods  of  translation  and  his  desire  for  variety.     The  former  influ- 


'  Further  illustrations  of  this  tendency  may  be  noted  in  Engelbrecht's  treatise  on 
the  style  of  the  Coiisolatio,  in  SitzungsbericlUe  der  IVicncr  Akadeinie  Jer  Wiiseii' 
schaften,  1901,  pp.  15-36. 


130  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

ence  helps  to  account  for  the  appearance  and  disappearance  of  certain 
usages ;  it  tends  to  unification  of  vocabulary.  Though  important,  it  has 
in  many  cases  only  a  transient  effect.  In  contrast  to  this,  the  second 
influence — the  evident  aiming  at  variety — tends  to  diversity  of  diction. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  foregoing  facts,  we  are  now  ready  to  Lake  up 
our  chronological  study  of  the  writings  of  Boethius.  Any  such  research 
must  be  based  on  the  painstaking  and  masterly  investigation^  of  Samuel 
Brandt.  Utilizing  all  the  references  made  by  Boethius  to  his  own  writ- 
ings, he  has  fixed  beyond  all  question  the  chronology  of  most  of  the  works. 
He  has  made  out  an  almost  complete  framework,  leaving  now  and  then 
a  gap  of  more  or  less  uncertainty  which,  I  hope,  may  be  at  least  partly 
supplied  by  my  investigations.  Brandt  divides  the  extant  writings  of 
Boethius  into  fi\-e  classes  and  arranges  them  chronologically  as  follows : 
I.  Works  on  the  quadrivium;  De  Arithmetica,  De  Musica,  De  Geome- 
tria.  2.  Works  on  the  principles  of  logic;  Dialogi  in  Porphyrium, 
Commentarii  in  Porphyrium,  Coninientarii  in  Cafegorias  (510  a.d.). 
3.  Further  works  on  the  principles  of  logic;  Editio  Prior  nepl  'Epfirj- 
vetas,  Priora  Analytica,  De  Syllogismis  Caiegoricis,  Editio  Sccunda 
Trepl  'F,pfir]veLa<i ,  Introdiictio  ad  Syllogisitios  Categoricos,  De  Syllogismis 
Hypotheticis,  De  Divisione,  Posteriora  Analytica.  4.  Dialectic  proof 
and  its  application  to  Rhetoric ;  Aristotelis  Topica,  Sophistici  Elenchi, 
Commentarii  in  Ciceronis  Topica,  De  Diffcrentiis  Topicis.  Also,  most 
probably,  the  Opiiscida  Sacra.     5.    Consolatio  Philosophiae  (523/4). 

Brandt's  order  is  practically  certain.  I  shall  take  issue  with  him  only 
in  regard  to  the  works  on  the  quadrivium  and,  possibly,  the  De  Syllogis- 
mis Categoricis.  In  fact,  I  consider  it  the  strongest  corroboration  of 
my  method,  that  my  conclusions  are  exactly  the  same  as  Professor 
Brandt's,  except  in  the  case  of  works  concerning  which  there  is  a 
reasonable  doubt.  I  hope  also  to  place  the  De  Divisione  and  Intro- 
diictio ad  Syllogisfnos  Categoricos  a  little  more  definitely  than  Brandt 
has  been  able  to  do,  and  to  confirm  his  reasoning  as  to  the  position  of 
the  Posteriora  Analytica  and  Sophistici  Elenchi. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that,  excluding  the  treatises  on  the  quadrivium, 
there  are  four  classes  of  works,   according   to   their  chronology  and 


'  Entstehungszeit  und  zeitliclie  Folge  der  Werke  von  BoeHtius.,  rhilologus,  LXII, 
pp.  141-154;  234-279.  See  also  his  edition  of  the  Commentaries  of  Boethius  on 
Porphyry's  Isago^e,  1906,  pp.  xxvi  ft.,  Ixxix  ff.,  and  cf.  below,  p.  155. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  BoctJiius      13  I 

subject  matter.  Taking  the  works  the  relative  dates  of  which  are 
positively  known,  I  propose  to  show  first  that  works  of  a  given  period 
markedly  agree  and  that  divergencies  can  be  largely  explained ;  if  this 
is  not  the  cose,  the  whole  method  rests  on  a  sandy  foundation  and 
discourages  further  impiiry.  My  results  are  presented  in  tables.  In 
preparation  of  these  I  have  noted  innumerable  stylistic  phenomena, 
including  all  the  conjunctions  and  particles  in  the  writings  of  Boethius. 
I  include  here  only  such  tests  as  have  significance.  In  the  case  of 
particles  not  mentioned  in  my  article,  Boethius  formed  no  habits  which 
can  serve  the  investigator. 

The  first  class  contains  the  following  works  :  Dialogi  in  Porphyriuniy 
Commentarii  in  Porphvriitm,  Commentani  in  Categorias.  The  tables 
below  will  show  how  they  agree  in  the  use  of  certain  particles.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  the  Com.  in  Porphyrium  agrees  now  with  the  Dialogi 
and  now  with  the  Com.  in  Categorias.  The  reasons  thereof  will  be 
explained  in  passing. 

2  3 

pp.'     Vero       Sed  Autcin  Qiiodsi  Que  Ac      Atque  Et 

Dial,  in  For.             57       257       192  147       28  173  11        154  908 

Com.  in  For.            73^     416       252  131       42  117  77       191  650 

Com.  in  Categ.       113       489       500  277       53  214  29       296  1407 

These  particles  show  a  fairly  consistent  use  on  the  part  of  Boethius. 

Ac  appears  more  frequently  in  the  Com.  in  Porphyrium  than  we  should 

expect.     Still,  as  compared  with  ct,  its  use  is  rare,  whereas  in  the  late 

periods  it  is  much  more  frequent. 

4 

Qiiidem-sed  Qiiidem-vero  Qiiidem-autem 

Dial,  in  For 2  2  i 

Com.  in  For 23  117  17 

Com.  in  Categ 35  80  16 

As  Rand  has  shown,  the  frequency  of  these  correlatives  in  the  two 
later  works  is  due  to  the  influence  of  translation,  see  above,  p.  124  f. 

5 

Itaquc  Igitur  Ergo 

Dial,  in  For 14  123  58 

Com.  in  For 32  157  30 

Com.  in  Categ i  129  139 

^  The  pages  are  reckoned  according  to  Migne.  Allowance  is  made  for  tables, 
headings,  etc. 


132  Art! uir  Pate Ji  McKmlay 

Ergo  is  used  more  frequently  in  the  Com.  iti  Categoiias  than  in 
the  corresponding  work  on  Porphyry.  The  preponderance  in  either 
case  seems  due  to  the  influence  of  translation,  as  the  following  figures 
show. 

Igitur  Ergo 

Interpr.  Isag 14  8 

Interpr.  Categ 8  19 

6 

Nam  Etenim  Enim 

Dial,  in  For 211  5  229 

Com.  in  For 98  5  412 

Com.  in  Categ 212  5  636 

Eni?n  has  a  heavy  lead  over  natn  in  the  two  later  works.  Translation 
seems  to  be  the  cause.     See  p.  128. 

7  8 

Quoniam  Quod  Ideo  Idcirco 

Dial,  in  For 120  76  39             17 

Com.  in  For.      ...           159  158  13             65 

Com.  in  Categ.  .    .    .           276  337  30           136 

The  influence  of  translation  in  the  use  of  all  these  particles  is  direct  and 
important.  In  witness  of  this,  see  the  notes  under  the  preceding  tables 
and  also  compare  the  following  : 

»  10  11 

Quoniam  Quod  Quare  Namque 

Interpr.  Isag.      ...           16  5  5  I 

Com.  in  For.      ...         159  158  5  6 

Interpr.  Categ.   ...             4  239  35  17 

Com.  in  Categ.  .    .    .         276  337  113  125 

For  ideo  and  idcireo  see  p.  126. 

As  we  compare  the  works  of  this  class  we  see  that  the  agreements 
are  not  so  striking  as  will  apjiear  in  the  remaining  classes.  This  lack 
of  agreement  strongly  corroborates  my  results ;  for  we  expect  the  Com. 
in  Porphvrii/m  to  show  the  influence  of  translation  and  hence  to  differ 
from  the  Dialogi ;  we  expect  the  Com.  in  Catcgorias  to  show  still 
further  influence  of  translation  and  to  differ  still  more  from  the  Dialogi'. 

I  now  take  up  the  second  class.  The  ])rincipal  works  are  the  Prior 
and  Seeiinda  Rditiones  irefA  'E/j/xT^i/tm?.     The  tables  exj)laiii  themselves. 


Stylistic  TiSts  and  Chrotiology  of  the  Works  of  Boethitts      133 


Vi 

pp. 

Uursus 

Iteruin             Item 

Praetercii 

InKupcr 

Prior    .    .    . 

86 

125 

2                     I 

I 

0 

Secunda  .    . 

228 

235 

5                     2 

0 

0 

i:t 

Cnusal  conjunctions 
Quoniam         Qiiia  Quod 


14 

With  clauses  in  indirect  discourse 
Qiioniain       (^lia         C^od 


Prior   .    .    . 

138 

29 

112 

109 

3 

6 

Secunda  .    . 

369 

65 
15 

362 

287 

4 
i<( 

31 

Qiuire       Quocirca 

Enim 

Nam 

Xamque 

Prior    .    .    . 

93 

27 

473 

"3 

55 

Secunda  .    , 

I 

92 

17 

97 

1249 

277 

126 

Itaque     Igitur 

Ergo 

At  vero     \'tro 

Sed 

Autem 

Prior    .    .    . 

3 

98 

121 

5         142 

286 

253 

Secunda  .    . 

S 

318 
10 

308 

II        465 

20 

883 

640 
21 

Que 

Et 

Ac      Atque 

Qiioque    Etiam            Ita 

Sic 

Prior    .    .    . 

121 

900 

15           90 

126           60 

91 

39 

Secunda  .    . 

317 

2225 

45         2S6 
2:t 

478         211 

384 
24 

93 

Tamquam      Ut 

Quidem 

Qiiidcin 

C^idem 

Id  est 

si               si 

Sfd 

vero 

autein 

Prior    .    .    . 

123 

31           33 

44 

34 

21 

Secunda .    . 

290 

75          65 

94 

147 

85 

These  are  only  a  few  of  the  tests  that  show  the  resemblance  between 
these  two  works.  Some  one  might  say  that  the  striking  agreement  in 
style  as  shown  by  these  tables  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  two  works  deal 
with  the  same  subject.  This  is  a  factor,  to  be  sure,  but  not  necessarily 
a  controlling  one,  as  will  be  seen  from  a  reference  to  the  tables  on 
p.  152.  There  it  appears  that  the  two  works,  the  Priora  and 
Posteriora  Analytica,  differ  very  materially,  though  the  subject  matter 
is  such  as  to  admit  of  similarities  in  usage;  there  is  nothing  inherent  in 
the  two  that  would  necessitate  the  exclusive  use,  for  example,  of  rursi/s 
in  the  one  and  iteriim  in  the  other.  The  differences  noted  on  p.  152 
are  due  no  doubt  to  the  fact  that  the  works  belong  to  different  periods. 
Hence  we  see  that  works  similar  in  nature  need  not  necessarily  show 
general  agreement  in  stylistic  peculiarities. 


134  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

I  now  come  to  the  third  class.     These  are  the  Com.  in  Ciceronis 
Topica  and  the  De^  Differentiis  Topica. 


Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 
De  Diff.  Top.    . 


Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 
De  Diff.  Top.     .    . 

The  reappearance  of  itan  and  iiaque  may  be  due  to  the  influence  of 
Cicero,  as  the  following  figures  indicate. 


25 

26 

pp. 

Quare   Quocirca   U 

nde 

Enim       Xam 

ii8 

4 

12 

14 

401           201 

40 

4 
2T 

6 

5 

134             60 
28 

Itaque 

Ig^itur 

Ergo 

Rursus        Item 

37 

384 

43 

42          54 

15 

98 

3 

20             18 

Rursus 

Item 

Itaque 

Igitur 

Ergo 

Top.  Cic 

2 

10 
29 

9 

26 
30 

2 

Causal 

conjunctions 

I 

n  indirect  discourse 

Quoniam 

Qiiia        Qiiod 

Quoniam  Quia 

Quod 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 

148 

118 

152 

I              0 

2 

De  Diff.  Top.    .    . 

46 

24 

51 

2              0 

0 

31 

32 

Autem 

Sad 

Vero 

Quoque 

Etiam 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 

142 

392 

581 

154 

202 

De  Diff.  Top.     .    . 

73 

116 

219 

52 

49 

:t:t 

34 

Que 

Et 

Ac 

Atque 

lu 

Sic 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 

312 

698 

131 

310 

192 

24 

De  Diff.  Top.    .    . 

77 

272 

70 
»5 

93 

67 

9 

Quod  si          SI  vero        £ 

ii  autem 

Sedsi 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top. 

37 

6 

2 

7 

De  Diff.  Top.    .    . 

13 

2 

0 

5 

'  To  this  treatise  Usener  {Anecdoton  Holderi,  p.  41)  refers  as  '•seinem  (Boethius's) 
verhaltnissmassig  selljstandigsten  Werk."  But  Boethius's  method  here  is  really  not 
different  from  that  followed  in  his  other  technical  treatises.  lie  cites  various  passages 
from  Cicero  and  comments  on  them  in  the  usual  fashion.  Some  of  these  come  from 
the  De  Invoilioue.  Compare  De  Differentiis,  p.  1207  n-D,  and  De  luventione,  7, 
which  deal  with  the  three  kinds  of  rhetoric;  also  De  Differentiis,  p.  1208  a:  n,  and 
De  Inventione,  10,  which  treat  of  the  five  parts  of  rhetoric.  It  is  also  noteworthy 
that  the  introduction  of  the  De  Differentiis,  pp.  1174-11761)  sununarizes  what 
has  already  been  said  in  the  two  editions  of  Xlepl  'Epixr^vdas,  in  the  De  Syllo^smis 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Boethius      135 

A  comparison  of  the  preceding  tal)les  shows  that  works  of  a  given 
period  markedly  agree  in  the  use  of  certain  particles  —  the  only  particles, 
be  it  remembered,  which  reveal  any  distinct  stylistic  tendencies  in  such 
works.  The  question  now  arises  whether  there  is  any  marked  disagree- 
ment in  works  of  diverse  times.     The  following  tables  are  a  sufficient 

answer. 

:i(t 

First  Class  pp.  Rursus                  Item 

Dial,  in  For 57  14                     27 

Com.  in  For 73  20                     40 

Com.  in  Categ 113  72                       4 

Second  Class 

Ilept  'Vjpix.   Ed.  Frior     .    .  86  125                         I 

n«pi  'Ep/i.   Ed.  Sec.      .    .  228  235                       2 

Third  Class 

Com.  in  Cic 118  42                     54 

De  Differ.  Top 40  20                      18 

Fourth  Class 

Consol.  Fhilos 46  3                        i 

In  the  use  of  item  the  Com.  in  Categorias  shows  an  affinity  with  the 
works  of  the  following  class. 

3T 

With  clauses  in  indirect  discourse 

First  Class  pp.  Qiioniam  Quia  Quod 

Dial,  in  For 57  3  o  15 

Com.  in  For 73  9  o  10 

Com.  in  Categ 113  42  o  34 

Second  Class 

IlepJ  'EpM-  Ed.  Prior     .    .  86  109  3  6 

Ilepi  'Ep/u.  Ed.  Sec.      .    .  228  287  4  31 

Third  Class 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top.     ...  118  i  o  2 

De  Differ.  Top 40  2  o  o 

Fourth  Class 

Consol.  Fhilos (i)'  o  (i)' 


Categoricis,  in  the  Introductio  ad  Syllogismos  Categoricos  and  in  the  De  Syllogismis 
Hypotheticis . 

'  Consolatio  Philosophiae,  2,  4,  77,  according  to  the  manuscripts  has  the  reading 
vtanifestuni  est  quin.  Migne  reads  quod.  Rand  would  read  qtioniam.  This  con- 
jecture would  carry  great  weight  if  the  book  had  been  written  ten  years  previously. 
As  it  is,  however,  such  a  correction  is  extremely  doubtful. 


136  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

Quia  is  used  only  in  the  second  class.  In  the  first  class  quoniam 
and  quod  are  about  even.  In  the  second  quoniam  takes  the  lead.  In 
the  later  classes  the  construction  itself  is  practically  abandoned. 

.18 

first  Class  pp.  Quocirca  Quare 

Dial,  in  For 57  i  12 

Com.  in  For 73  7  5 

Com.  in  Categ 113  122  113 

Second  Class 

Uepl  "Ep/x.  Ed.  Prior    .    .  <S6  27  93 

Uepl  'Epn.  Ed.  Sec.      .    .  228  97  192 

Third  Class 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top.     .    .    .  118  12  4 

De  Diff.  Top 40  6  4 

Fotirth  Class 

Consol.  Fhilos 46  o  26 

Again  the  Com.  in  Categorias  agrees  with  the  following  works. 

.to 

First  Class  pp.  Itaque  Igitur  Ergo 

Dial,  in  For 57  14  123  58 

Com.  in  For 73  32  157  30 

Com.  in  Categ 113  i  129  139 

Second  Class 

VLepl  'Epfj..  Ed.  Frior    .    .  86  3  98  121 

Uepl  'Ep/M.  Ed-  Sec,     .    .  228  8  318  308 

Third  Class 

Com.  in  Cic.  Top.     ...  118  37  384  43 

De  Diff.  Top 40  15  98  3 

Fourth  Class 

Consol.  Fhilos 46  17  152  o' 

Itaque  dJiA  ergo  connect  the  Com.  in  Categorias  with  the  second  class. 

pp.               QiiL'-  Kt                        Ac  Atque 

■    First  Class                                             ^  ^                      ^  )( 

Dial,  in  For 57  173      .19  908  i.  11      .01  154     .16 

Com.  in  For.      ...           73  117      .18  650  i.  77     .12  191     .29 

Com.  in  Categ.      .    .         113  214      .15  1407  i.  29     .02  296     .21 


'  I  have  not  included  the  Carmino,  which  contain  two  instances  of  ergo. 

'  Following  the  method  of  Lutoslawski,  I  have  taken  the  most  important  of  a 
series  of  synonyms,  e.  g.  et,  as  the  basis  of  comparison  rather  than  their  sum  total, 
that  the  relation  between  the  several  particles  may  be  most  patent  to  the  eye. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Bocthius      i  37 

10 

pp.               Que  Et  Ac  Atquc 

Second  Class                                          ^  i  i  i 

Uepl  'Ep/M.   Ed.  Prior           86  121      .13  900  i.  15     .01  90     .10 

Uepl  'Epix.   Ed.  Sec.           228  317      .14  2225  i.  45     .02  286     .12 

Third  Class 
Com.  in  Cic.  Top.     .         118         312      .44  698     i.         131      .18         310     .44 

De  Diff.  Top.     ...  40  77      .28  272     i.  70     .25  93     .34 

Fourth  Class 
Consol.  Philos.    ...  46         286    1.90  150     i.  55     .36  94     .62 

Generally  speaking,  que,  ac,  atqiie,  as  compared  with  et,  appear  more 
frequently  in  the  later  works. 

Without  taking  space  for  tables  I  may  also  say  that  tainqiiam  si  is  a 
marked  feature  of  the  second  class.  It  is  found  therein  at  least  no 
times.  In  all  the  other  works  put  together  the  amount  is  less  than  ten. 
It  is  also  noteworthy  that  autem  far  outstrips  vera  in  the  second  class, 
but  earlier  and  later  it  falls  far  behind  that  particle.  This  variation  is 
due  to  translation.  For  after  the  Interpretatio  Isagogae,  autem  is  far  in 
the  ascendancy. 

A  glance  at  the  preceding  tables  will  show  that  the  various  periods 
have  striking  divergencies.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  works  of  the 
first  period  agree  with  each  other  less  strikingly  than  the  others.  This 
was  to  have  been  expected.  Boethius  was  a  young  man  at  the  time 
and  his  style  was  readily  susceptible  of  change.  Furthermore,  the 
influence  of  translation  is  apparent  here.  There  are  few  traces  of  such 
influence  in  the  first  work,  presumably  because  our  author  has  not  yet 
entered  deeply  into  his  Greek  studies.  The  second  work,  the  Com.  in 
Forphyrium,  may  be  looked  upon  as  transitional  in  style.  The  influence 
of  the  Greek  is  making  itself  strongly  felt.  The  third  work  shows  the 
influence  of  translation  in  full  sway.  This  conclusion  has  a  radical 
bearing  on  our  whole  treatment.  Hereafter  I  shall  no  longer  follow 
Brandt  in  classifying  the  works  of  Boethius  according  to  subject  matter, 
but  shall  use  the  system  which  my  results  seem  to  demand  —  a  classifi- 
cation according  to  stylistic  peculiarities. 

The  comprehensive  tabular  view  which  follows  will  show  that  there 
are  four  main  classes  into  which  the  works  of  Boethius  may  be  grouped. 
These  classes  are  clearly  distinguished,  and  yet,  in  certain  details,  as  is 
natural,  adjoining  classes  shade  into  each  other. 


138 


Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

41 


pp. 


O' 


<^ 


First  Class 
Dial,  in  For.  .  . 
Com.  in  For.  .  . 
De  Arith.     .    .    . 


Second  Class 

Com.  in  Categ.    .    . 

Uepi  'EpM.  Ed.  Frior 

De  Syllog.  Categ.'  . 

Uepi  'Ep^.   Ed.  Sec. 

Transition  from  Second 
to  Third  Class 

De  Divisione    .    . 
Introd.  ad  Syl.  Cat. 
De  Syllog.  Hypoth. 

Third  Class 
De  Musica  .... 
Com.  in  Cic.  Top.  . 
De  Differ.  Top.  .  . 
De  Trinitate  .  .  . 
Pater  et  Filius  .  . 
Quomodo  Suljstant. 
Eutych.  et  Nest.  . 
Consol.  Fhilos.     .    . 


(Do  Fide  Cath.) 


57 
73 
71 

"3 
86 

30 
228 

15 
26 

42 


118 

40 

eh 
i-i 
3 

i4i 
46 


13 


117 

24 

80 

34 
o 

147 

12 
42 


79!  13 


90  22 


112 

63 

5 

I 

2 

17 

38 


123 
157 
105 

129 

98 

119 


8318 


173 


.19 


908  I. 


16 


117   .18 
212    .22 


139  214 


II  .01  154 
650  I.   yy  .12  191 .29 
924  I.    17.01  133I.15 


121 
25 


30811317 


o   22    15 


5|  17 
9 


52 

243 


412    12 

384'  43 

i 
3 

16 

7 

23 

31      3 
152     o 


19 
52 
39 

320 

312 

77 

19 

3 

13 

68 

286 

19 


1407 
900 
398 

2225 


29 


I.    15 


177  I 

133 
270 


621 
698  I 


.70 
1.90 


272 

41 

9 

17 

97 

150 

39 


.021296 


,01    90.10 


i8|.04 
286  .12 


243  .39  220 
131  .18310 


.08 


Si 


•35 
•44 
■34 
•43 


*  I  leave  this  work  here  for  convenience.     See  discussion  on  pp.  140-144,  155. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Boethiiis     139 


41 


s 

E 

(4 

S5 

0 

^1 

S 

y 
< 

i 

> 

5_ 

1 
1 

1  C 
1  u 

& 

^ 
^ 

a 
u 

'i 

0 

1 

0 

I 
0 

g 

2 

3 

E 

i 

3 

3 
« 

3 

S 

V 

71 

7 

211 

229 

'44 

6 

n 

II 

I 

12 

0 

°i 

24 

24 

3 

0 

15 

;  78 

43 

14 

27 

8 

4 

98 

412 

22 

I 

3 

14 

7 

5 

12 

12 

0 

0 

9 

0 

10 

ISO 

9 

20 

40 

62 

6 

85 

292 

25 

9 

42 

7 

0 

18 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

0 

6 

57 

37 

108 

8 

125 

79 

212 

636 

19 

5 

22 

12 

122 

"3 

0 

0 

2 

I 

42 

0 

34 

ISO 

31 

72 

4 

55 

49 

"3 

473 

5 

I 

18 

3 

27 

93 

0 

0 

0 

0 

109 

3 

6 

91 

39 

125 

I 

12 

0 

91 

159 

3 

0 

3 

5 

0 

3 

0 

0 

I 

I 

12 

3 

14 

30 

40 

5 

34 

126 

107 

277 

1249 

II 

2 

63 

33 

97 

192 

0 

0 

2 

2 

287 

4 

31 

384 

93 

235 

2 

15 

H 

17 

75 

0 

0 

I 

7 

4 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

0 

I 

17 

13 

25 

I 

17 

13 

47 

lOI 

0 

0 

0 

4 

6 

4 

5 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

26 

3 

9 

29 

26 

18 

"5 

181 

9 

I 

0 

3 

26 

4 

20 

18 

0 

0 

6 

19 

4 

153 

19 

26 

26 

17 

7 

76 

223 

3 

0 

4 

36 

21 

2 

6 

6 

0 

0 

10 

I 

0 

120 

10 

99 

43 

56 

47 

201 

401 

IS 

0 

i' 

37 

12 

4 

25 

25 

2 

I 

I 

0 

2 

192 

24 

42 

54 

9 

8 

60 

134 

3 

0 

0 

19 

6 

4 

4 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

67 

9 

20 

18 

2 

0 

20 

41 

0 

0 

2 

13 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

0 

0 

19 

I 

6 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

3. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

0 

I 

I 

0 

0 

4 

15 

I 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19 

63 

0 

0 

0 

7 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

23 

0 

5 

4 

16 

16 

81 

116 

2 

0 

0 

19 

0 

26 

13 

13 

2 

I 

(I) 

0 

0 

79 

22 

3 

I 

0 

0 

I 

3 

0 

0 

2 

I 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

3 

0 

140  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

The  classes  presented  in  the  preceding  table  are  as  follows : 

First  Class.  —  Works  in  which  the  influence  of  translation  is  little 
felt,  as  the  Dial,  in  Porphyriiiin,  or  in  which  such  influence  is  manifest- 
ing itself,  as  the  Com.  in  Poi'phyrium.     I  call  this  the  transitional  period. 

Second  Class. — The  influence  of  translation  is  paramount;  Com.  in 
Categorias,  Ile/oi  'Ep/xr/vetas ,  Editio  Prior  and  Editio  Sccunda.  I  call 
this  the  Greek  period. 

Third  Class.  —  Works  in  which  the  influence  of  Cicero  is  felt;  Com. 
in  Cic.  Topica,  Dc  Diffcretitiis  Topicis.    I  call  this  the  Ciceronian  period. 

Fourth  Class.  —  Consolatio  Philosophiae. 

Since  these  classes  are  clearly  defined,  it  remains  only  to  fit  in  the 
somewhat  less  certain  works,  most  of  which  Brandt  has  placed  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree  of  certainty.  Of  these  the  De  Syllogisviis  Cate- 
goricis  seems  to  go  between  the  two  Editiones  irepl  'Epfxrjveia's  and  after 
the  Priora  Anahtica.  The  Introductio  ad  Syllogismos  Catcgoricos  was 
written  after  the  Prior  Editio.  Whether  it  antecedes  the  Dc  Syllo- 
gismis  Categoricis  Brandt  cannot  determine.  The  De  Syllogismis 
Hypotheticis  follows  the  Editio  Secunda  and  precedes  the  Commentarii 
in  Ciceronis  Topica.  The  De  Divisione  was  written  before  the  De 
Diffe?-entiis  Topicis  and  probably  after  the  works  on  interpretation. 

Practically  every  test  in  thq  preceding  table  shows  that  the  De  Divi- 
sione is  transitional  between  the  works  of  the  second  and  third  periods. 

The  rarity  of  quidcni  .  .  .  an  tern,  ergo,  qiioniam,  quia,  quod,  sic,  and 
the  frequency  of  que,  ac,  atque,  quo,  quo  fit  ally  the  Introductio  ad 
Syllogismos  Categoricos  with  the  third  period.  Hence  I  place  it  later 
than  the  second  edition  of  Ilcpt  'E/3yu.r;vetas .  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  De  Syllogismis  Hypotheticis. 

The  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis  is  a  peculiar  work.  The  most  cursory 
perusal  will  show  that  the  book  is  si/i  generis  among  the  writings  of 
Boethius.  1 1  is  characterized  by  a  marked  paucity  of  stylistic  pheno- 
mena and  by  a  brevity  strained  to  the  utmost.  In  fact,  at  first  sight  it 
might  appear  that  this  work  is  the  breviarium  referred  to  on  j).  251, 
II.  9-15,  of  the  second  edition  of  lltpl  'Ep/xT/vetus .  Branilt  {Ent- 
stehungszeit,  p.  257)  has  exploded  this  theory.  His  conclusion  is 
strengthened  by  the  character  of  the  introduction  of  the  De  Syllogismis 
Categoricis.  This  ])roaemium  is  elaborate  and  by  no  means  leads  us  to 
anticipate  the  brevity  of  the  body  of  the  work.     After  the  elaborate 


Stylistic  Tists  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Bocthiiis      141 

introduction  come  a  few  words  tiiat  furnish  a  clue  to  the  style  to  be 
expected  (M.,  p.  794  c-d)  :  inchoandum  nobis  est  illo  jjrius  dei^ulso 
periculo  ne  a  quoquam  stenlis  culpetur  oratio.  Non  enim  eloquentiae 
compositiones  sed  planitiem  consectamur :  qua  in  re  si  hoc  efficimus 
quamlibet  incompte  Icx-iuentes  intentio  quoque  nostra  nobis  perfecta  est. 
Sterilis  and  incompte  are  terms  particularly  applicable  to  the  style  of 
the  work  in  question.  A  good  example  of  the  former  quality  is  seen 
in  the  way  Boethius  employs  illustrations.  To  illustrate  a  declarative 
sentence,  we  find,  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis,  p.  797  b:  Socrates 
ambulat.  With  this  it  is  interesting  to  compare  the  Introductio  ad 
Syllogismos  Categoricos,  p.  767  B,  where  to  illustrate  the  same  kind  of 
sentence  we  find  Virgil's  words  : 

Est  mihi  disparibus  septem  compacta  cicutis 
Fistula. 

How  applicable  incompte  is  to  the  style  of  our  work  is  shown  from 
the  following,  —  not  that  the  usages  are  found  exclusively  in  this  work, 
but  that  they  are  so  frequent  as  to  be  particularly  noticeable. 

The  preposition  ad  appears  very  often  in  the  sense  of  secundum ; 
p.  799  b:  ad  quantitatem  (cf.  p.  800  d  :  secundum  quantitatem)  ; 
p.  799  c:  ad  eundem  ordinem ;  p.  797  a:  ad  placitum  (cf.  p.  795  c: 
secundum  placitum). 

The  constructions  with. participo  are  also  noteworthy,  p.  799  a  :  parti- 
cipat  ad  utrosque  terminos ;  with  in  and  the  ablative,  p.  798  c;  with 
the  ablative  alone,  p.  798  c;  with  the  dative  and  the  ablative  after  in, 
p.  798  c:  in  nullo  siSi  participantes.  In  the  Dialogi  in  Porphyrium 
we  find  the  genitive,  e.g.,  p.  62  a:  sui  participari /  the  accusative 
alone  in  the  Inteipretatio  Aristotelis  Topicorum,  p.  945  b:  c;  also  the 
preposition  a  {ad)  with  ablative,  Ilcpt  'EpfMrjveia<s,  Ed.  Sec,  p.  18,  I.  17. 

Another  unusual  construction  is  abundo  with  the  ablative  in  compari- 
son, p.  804  b  :  homine  animal  abundat ;  with  this  compare  Dialogi  in 
Porphyrium,  p.  35  c  :   mains  est  animal  ab  homine. 

xAgain  within  a  short  compass  we  have  five  instances  of  such  an 
unusual  collocation  as  acquale  est  ac  si  diceres  {dicas),  p.  807  d  f. 

Another  striking  fact  in  the  style  of  the  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis  is 
the  rarity  of  the  quidcm  .  .  .  sed,  vero,  autein  correlatives.  In  fact, 
on  first  sight  the  seeming  rarity  of  the  equivalents  for  the  Greek  \).\v 


14: 


Arlhur  Patch  McKinlay 


.  .  .  8e  might  lead  us  seriously  to  question  the  validity  of  applying  the 
stylistic  method  to  Boethius  at  all,  if  indeed  the  work  in  question  were 
not  so  abnormal  in  many  ways.  This  irregularity  manifests  itself 
particularly  in  conciseness  of  diction,  as  has  already  been  shown. 
Though  this  trait  would  account  for  the  rarity  of  the  qitidem  construc- 
tions, yet,  even  as  it  is,  we  find  several  instances.  Brandt  {Boethii  in 
Jsagogen  Porphyrii  Commenta,  Leipzig,  1906,  p.  Ixxxi)  has  enumerated 
these,  as  follows,  qitidem  .  .  .  aiiicm  once  and  qiiidem  .  .  .  sed  three 
times.  These  are  far  fewer  than  one  might  expect,  yet  he  would  be  rash 
indeed  who  would  throw  over  the  entire  method  when  it  fails  in  a  work 
so  abnormal  as  the  Z)e  Svi/flgis/fiis  Categoricis.  The  peculiar  style  of 
this  work  has  struck  the  attention  of  others  besides  myself.  Rocco 
Murari  [Dante  e  Boezio,  Bologna,  1905,  p.  92),  who  has  made  a  careful 
study  of  our  author,  is  so  impressed  with  the  difficulties  involved  in  the 
attempt  to  reconcile  the  character  of  the  De  Sytlogismis  Categoricis 
with  that  of  Boethius's  other  works,  that  he  cuts  the  Gordian  knot  by 
declaring  the  first  book  of  the  De  Sytlogismis  Categoricis  to  be  spurious. 
He  thinks  the  second  book  of  the  De  Sytlogismis  Categoricis  belongs  to 
the  Introductio  ad  Syllogismos  Categoricos,  considering  the  first  book  a 
mediaeval  abridgment  of  the  Introductio.  I  had  already  noticed  that 
the  second  book  of  the  De  Sytlogismis  Categoricis  closely  resembled  the 
Introductio ;  e.  g.  praedico  with  de  and  the  ablative  is  very  frequent  in 
the  second  book  of  the  De  Sytlogismis  Categoricis.  This  is  the  regular 
construction  in  the  Introductio,  whereas  in  the  first  book  of  the  De 
Svllogismis  Categoricis,  praedico  appears  very  often  with  ///  and  the 
ablative,  ad  and  the  accusative,  only  twice  with  de  and  the  ablative. 
Other  resemblances  are  as  follows  : 


De  Syllog.  Categ.  lib.  II      . 
Introd.  ad  Syllog.  Categ.     . 

pp. 
16 
26 

If,Mtur 
96 
52 

Ergo 
9 

5 

Sicut 
8 

4 

Utsi 

6 

14 

Quasi 
4 
4 

De  Syllog.  Categ.  lib.  II      . 
Introd.  ad  Syllog.  Categ.     . 

Qiiare 

3 
4 

Uiulc 

3 

2 

Qjioqne 
23 

39 

Etiani 
II 
16 

Qjiod  si 
2 
6 

Vero 

81 

119 

De  Syllog.  Categ.  lib.  II     . 
Introd.  ad  Syllog.  Categ.     . 

Sed 
.          67 

Autem 
29 
58 

C.iusal 
Qiioiiiam 

3' 
33 

1  conjuncti< 
(■ijiia 

4 
8 

>ns 
(^iiod 
16 

31 

Stylistu  Jisis  iDui  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Bac/hiiis      143 

The  rarity  of  the  quiikm  collocations  still  calls  for  comment  (the  one 
instance  of  (/i/i</ii/i  .  .  .  anion  occurs  in  Book  II),  bnt  perhaps  it  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  fully  one  half  of  the  book,  which  contains  but  22 
columns  of  Migne  in  all,  is  taken  uj)  with  model  syllogisms;  these  and 
the  preceding  and  acconii)anying  comment  seem  hardly  to  call  for  the 
construction  at  all.  It  might  occur  oftener  than  it  does,  but  the  case 
is  not  jxaralleled  by  the  Dia/oi^i  in  Porphyrin  in,  which  in  62  columns 
(57  with  allowances  for  figures,  etc.)  has  only  5  instances  of  qiiidcm 
.  .  .  sed,  vero,  or  an  tern. 

Further,  if  we  may,  for  the  moment,  accept  Murari's  conjecture, 
exclude  Book  I  as  spurious,  and  consider  Book  II  as  contemporaneous 
with  the  Infrodnctio,  certain  tendencies  to  which  my  statistics  point, 
appear  in  clearer  light.  Er^^o,  enim,  item  now  show  a  continuous 
development.  Beginning  with  the  De  Arithmetica  and  continuing 
through  the  second  book  of  the  De  Syllogismis  Catei:;orieis,  qnoqne 
outnumbers  etiani  two  to  one  ;  from  the  De  SyUogismis  Hypothetieis  the 
relation  is  reversed.  In  the  first  and  third  periods  i^ero  surpasses  sed  2X 
least  two  to  one ;  in  the  second  period  the  relation  is  reversed. 

I  hesitate  to  accept  Murari's  view,  although  it  harmonizes  so  well 
with  my  results,  until  the  whole  question  has  been  investigated  again, 
and  the  oldest  manuscrii)ts  of  the  De  Syllogisniis  have  been  collated.-^ 
The  theory  must  confront,  first  of  all,  Brandt's  very  probable  demon- 
stration {op.  cit.,  p.  245)  that  the  work  contains  too  many  additions  to 
be  an  excerpt  from  the  Introduetio.  But  why  could  it  not  be  an 
excerpt  from  a  lost  work  on  the  same  subject,  the  existence  of  which 
Brandt  proves  (p.  259) — the  Catcgorica  Institntio  ?  And,  further, 
why  is  not  this  work  (referred  to  variously  as  Categoriea  Institntio,  De 
Pi-aedicativis  Syllogismis,  De   Catcgorieis  Syllogisniis^  the  original  pro- 


'  The  title  of  the  work  in  one  book  is  given  in  a  number  of  the  earlier  manuscripts 
as  Liber  Ante  Praedicamenta  ;  e.g.  \'alenciennes  406,  S.  IX/X;  Munich  6372,  S. 
X/XI  (ante  periermenias)  ;  Orleans  267,  S.  X/.XI;  Chartres  lOO,  S.  XI.  The 
work  in  two  books,  on  the  contrary,  often  bears  the  title  which  appears  in  the  editions 
for  that  in  one  book,  i.  e.  Liber  Lntroductiouis  in  Categoricos  Syllogismos.  Cf. 
besides  the  preceding,  Munich  6370,  S.  X;  Chartres  74,  S.  X.  The  title  Je  Catego- 
ricis  Sydogismis  (or  the  Hke)  appears  in  various  later  manuscripts  (e.  g.  Orleans  265, 
S.  XIV),  none  earlier  than  Tours  676,  S.  XII  XIII.  This  array  of  witnesses,  though 
by  no  means  complete,  warrants  the  suspicion  that  our  printed  te.\t  derives  from  a  late 
and  inferior  source. 


144  Artliur  Patch  McKinlay 

duction  that  appeared  between  the  first  and  second  editions  of  the 
commentary  on  Ilept  'Epixr]veta<;  ?  Such  a  work,  just  as  Brandt  suggests, 
would  treat  the  subject  somewhat  more  fully  than  the  Introdiictio  or  the 
extant  De  Categoricis  Syllogismis,  although  it  did  not  exceed  the  limits 
of  diifl  libclli  (M.,  p.  833  b).  In  that  case,  the  Introdiictio  may  be  after 
all  the  hrcviariiiin  of  which  Boethius  speaks  (Meis.,  II,  251,  8),  just 
as  Usener  surmised  (Brandt,  p.  258).  But,  apart  from  these  possibili- 
ties, as  it  seems  clear  from  other  grounds  than  those  presented  by  me 
that  Book  I  is  an  abnormal  affair,  whether  written  by  Boethius  or  not, 
I  feel  justified  in  excluding  it  from  our  present  consideration.  Granting 
the  abnormality  of  the  work,  the  evidence  offered  therein  on  matters  of 
usage,  so  far  from  overthrowing  the  evidence  of  stylistic  tests,  becomes 
a  remarkable  attestation  of  its  validity ;  such  exceptions  are  of  the  kind 
that  prove  the  rule. 

It  may  now  be  well  to  summarize,  the  preceding  points.  Checking 
my  results  by  Brandt's  conclusions  and  proceeding  on  the  basis  that 
works  of  a  given  time  agree  and  works  of  diverse  times  disagree,  I 
would  place  in  the  following  order  the  works  already  treated. 

Transitional  Period  :  Dialogi  in  Porphyriuni  ;  Com.  in  Porphyrin m. 
Greek  Period:  Com.  in  Catcgorias  (510  a. d.);  Ilepi  'Ep/xT^vetas,  Ed. 
Prior;  Ilepl'FipiJ.7]V€ia<;^  Pd.  Sec;  De  Dii'isione ;  Introdiictio  ad Syllogis- 
mos  Cafegoricos ;  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis,  lib.  II  {lib.  I  possibly  spuri- 
ous) ;  De  Syllogismis  Ilypotheticis.  Ciceronian  Period  :  Com.iii  Ciceronis 
Topica;  De  Differentiis  Topicis.    Last  Period  :    Consolatio  Philosophiae. 

Thus  far,  leaving  out  the  abnormal  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis,  my 
results  corroborate  the  facts  adduced  by  Professor  Brandt.  If  my 
method  is  substantiated  in  the  case  of  undisputed  works,  may  we  not 
with  confidence  apply  it  to  the  rest?  The  most  important  of  these  are 
the  De  Arithmetica  and  the  De  Miisica.  To  make  clear  the  position 
of  these  works,  it  will  be  necessary,  test  by  test,  to  show  from  the  tabular 
view  the  relationshii)s  and  differences  of  the  various  works  and  classes. 
That  such  tests  might  be  found  Professor  Rand  was  the  first  to  observe 
{Praktat  De  Pide  Catholica,  p.  436).  He  noticed  that  coUoc-ations 
with  qitidcm  were  a  marked  feature  of  works  later  than  the  Dialogi  in 
Porpliyriiim.  This  usage  seemed  to  arise  from  the  habit  our  author 
had  of  turning  pkv  ...  Se  by  </iiide/n  .  .  .  sed,  vero,  aiitrni.  Kand 
found    this    usage    well    established    in    the    w^rks   oil    the   (juadriviuin. 


Slylistic  Tests  and  Ckronoloi^y  of  the  \V<'yl<  .>f  Boetliius      145 

Hence  he  argued  that  these  works  were  later  than  the  Diahi^ite.  Com- 
paring the  use  of  the  conjunctions  it.ique,  i^itiir,  eri^o,  he  was  also 
disposed  to  deny  the  authorship  of  the  De  Fide  to  Boethius.  Professor 
Brandt  {Rntstehuni^szcit,  pp.  146  f.)  thought  that  the  stylistic  method, 
to  have  value,  must  be  based  upon  the  many  references  of  our  author 
to  his  own  works.  As  Brandt  himself  has  furnished  us  this  basis  for 
our  investigation,  I  propose  now  to  supplement  Professor  Rand's  work 
by  including  many  more  tests.  Referring  to  the  table  on  pp.  13S  f., 
I  will  take  each  test  separately  and  show  in  detail  its  place  in  the 
general  scheme. 

The  (jiiidem  collocations  are  rare  in  the  Dia/oi^i.  Hence  works  that 
show  the  frequent  use  of  them  will  be  expected  to  belong  to  a  period 
later  than  that  work. 

liaque  is  rare  during  the  second  period. 

Ergo  is  frequent  in  the  first  period,  in  the  second  vies  with  igitiir, 
and  later  almost  disappears. 

Que  and  ac  are  far  more  frequent  in  the  third  than  in  earlier  periods. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  atque. 

Namque  appears  less  and  less  frequently.  It  is  rarely  postpositive 
at  first,  later  usually  so. 

Nam  is  as  frequent  as  enim  only  in  the  Dialogi.  Whx  the  latter 
particle  outstripped  the  former  is  shown  above,  p.  128. 

At  vera  is  frequent  only  in  the  early  works.  The  same  is  true  of  at 
vera  si. 

Qiiemadmodiim  is  very  frec^uent  in  the  first  two  periods,  but  later  is 
hardly  found  at  all. 

Quasi  is  frequent  from  the  end  of  the  second  period. 

Quocirca  and  quare  are  frequent  in  the  second  period,  which  fact  is 
due  to  translation.  (See  above,  p.  132).  Quo  yf/ and  quo  in  the  sense 
of  therefore,  except  for  an  eccentric  appearance  in  the  commentary  on 
Porphyry,  date  from  the  transition  between  the  second  period  and  the 
third.  Porro  and  porro  autetn  are  frequent  only  in  the  Dialogi.  The 
qiioniam,  quia,  quod  clauses  are  frequent  only  duriug  the  Greek  period. 
Sic  as  compared  with  ita  is  rare  in  the  third  period.  Item,  except  for 
the  abnormal  De  Syllogismis  Categorieis,  is  rare  in  the  second  period. 

Now  we  are  ready  to  apply  these  tests  to  the  De  Arithmetica  and 
the  De  Musica.     Professor  Brandt  considers  that  they  belong  together 


146  Arthur  Patch  McKi)ilay 

and  must  be  accounted  the  first  of  Boethius's  extant  writings.  He  does 
this,  relying  upon  a  seemingly  plain  statement  of  our  author  to  that 
effect  in  De  Arithinctica,  p.  5,  11.  19-24:  Recte  ergo,  quasi  aureos 
Cereri  culmos  et  maturos  Baccho  palmites  sic  ad  te  noi'i  operis  rudi- 
menta  transmissi.  Tu  tantum  paterna  gratia  nostrum  i)rovehas  munus. 
Ita  ct  laboris  mei primitias  doctissimo  iudicio  consecrabis  et  non  maiore 
censebitur  auctor  merito  quam  probator.  Primitias  seems  to  imply  that 
this  was  the  maiden  effort  of  Boethius,  Jiovi  operis  referring  to  the  recent 
accomplishment  of  the  work.  Still,  as  Professor  Rand  has  pointed  out, 
these  words  need  imply  only  that  our  author  has  begun  a  new  task. 

As  to  Brandt's  contention  that  these  works  come  first  and  go 
together,  a  glance  at  the  tabular  view,  pp.  138  f.,  will  show  that 
they  do  not  belong  to  the  same  period.  Instead  of  resembling  each 
other  in  most  stylistic  criteria,  as  the  other  works  of  a  given  period  do, 
they  markedly  disagree.  Professor  Brandt  in  a  personal  letter  has 
suggested  that  this  disagreement  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  sources  of 
the  two  works  are  different,  for  as  has  been  shown,  the  sources  have  a 
marked  influence  on  the  style  of  a  work.  I  had  already  noticed  that 
with  a  new  subject  new  words  and  constructions  would  come  in,  e.  g. 
Dico  quia,  De  Miisica,  p.  303,  4 ;  Po/ie,  De  Arithmetiea,  p.  78,  30  : 
79,  7  :  14.  These  criteria,  however,  are  not  the  kind  on  which  I  rely, 
criteria  such  that  when  they  have  started,  appear  on  almost  every  page 
of  a  work,  e.  g.  et,  aiitem,  etc.  Furthermore,  if  Professor  Brandt's 
suggestion  holds,  we  should  find  the  diction  in  the  two  works  very 
uneven,  for  their  sources  are  manifold.  The  following  tables  will  show 
that  the  use  of  a  given  particle  in  either  work  is  fairly  consistent.  In 
each  work  the  first  sum  under  a  given  word,  e.  g.  aiitem,  is  the  total 
number  of  times  it  appears  in  the  whole  work.  The  figure  just  under 
is  the  number  of  times  that  word  is  found  in  the  first  half  of  the  book. 

Atque  Autciii  ]iiiiiii 

133  203  292 

76  102  146 

220  170  223 

105  66  91 

I  have  chosen  these  criteria  al])habctically.  The  figures  are  fairly 
constant.  Hence  I  conclude  that  stylistic  divergencies  in  the  two 
works  are  nut  due  to  diverse  sources. 


Ac 

At 

De  Arith.  .    . 

17 

36 

12 

17 

De  Musica 

•      243 
155 

II 
I 

i;t 

Ktiain 

I-itur 

lt;i 

Na.n 

924 

54 

105 

57 

^^5 

441 

24 

51 

26 

39 

621 

7J 

412 

120 

76 

277 

43 

171 

61 

3S 

Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  t lie  Works  of  Boethiiis      147 

I  come  now  to  the  other  of  Professor  Brandt's  contentions,  namely, 
that  the  works  on  the  quadrivium  are  the  earliest  of  Boethius'  extant 
writings.  I  had  accepted  this  as  the  true  view  all  the  while  that  my 
material  was  collecting.  When  I  began  to  study  my  results  it  was  borne 
home  to  me  that  the  De  Miisica  was  about  as  different  as  could  well  be 
from  the  Dialoi^,  which  must  have  followed  it  within  a  few  months  if 
Brandt  is  correct.  A  glance  at  the  tabular  view  (pp.  138  f.)  will 
enforce  this  divergence.     Cf.  also  these  tables. 

At  Nam  si  Quemad- 

pp.                            $                             %  Etiainsi  moduin  * 

Dial,  in  For 57              46     i.  79     i-                10  i 

De  Musica 89               11        .15  19       .14             o  12 

Deinceps     Invicein     Ut  puta     \'erc        Atsi  Ideo      \'cTum 

Dial,  in  For o  12  5  11  o  39  o 

De  Musica 10  i  o  o  4  11  8 

Besides  there  are  53  other  tests  consisting  of  particles  that  appear 
from  one  to  seven  times  in  one  of  the  two  works  and  not  at  all  in  the 
other.  Hence  it  hardly, seems  likely  that  the  De  Musica  was  written 
only  a  short  time  previous  to  the  Dialogi. 

If  the  De  Arithmetiea  and  De  Musica  do  not  belong  to  the  first 
period  nor  together,  where  do  they  come  in  the  chronolog)'  of  Boethius' 
works?  A  reference  to  the  tabular  view  on  pp.  138  f.  will  answer  that 
question. 

To  begin  with  the  De  Aritiimetica,  the  quidem  collocations  place  it 
later  than  the  Dialogi. 

Itaque  places  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  class. 

Ergo  places  it  before  the  third  class. 

Que,  <?/,  ac,  atque  show  the  same  thing. 

So  also  with  namque. 

Namque  postpositive  allies  it  with  the  Dialogi. 

Enim  compared  with  7}am  shows  that  it  is  later  than  the  Dialogi. 

At  vero,  at  vero  si,  quemadmodum  place  it  before  the  second  class. 

Quasi  places  it  before  the  third  class. 

Quocirca,  quare,  quo,  quo  fit  show  that  our  work  was  written  before 
the  influence  of  translation  became  paramount. 

Porro  places  it  later  than  the  Dialogi. 


In  questions. 


148  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

Qiioniam,  quia,  quod  in  clauses  of  indirect  discourse  place  it  before 
the  full  Greek  period. 

Sic  places  it  before  the  third  period. 

Rursus  places  it  later  than  the  Dialogi. 

Item  allies  it  with  the  second  period. 

There  is  a  further  criterium  which  has  a  strong  bearing  on  the  date 
of  our  work,  i.  e.  the  expression  of  the  definite  article,  e.  g.  to  rpi- 
■^uv  =  id  quod  est  currere.  I  have  treated  this  at  length  above, 
pp.  126  f.  This  idiom  does  not  occur  in  the  Dialogi,  nor  in  the  Com. 
in  Forphyrium,  nor  in  the  Z)e  Arithmetica.  It  begins  with  the  Inter- 
pretatio  Isagogac  and  the  Com.  in  Categorias.  After  that  it  is  found 
in  all  the  important  works  and  especially  in  the  De  Musica.  As  has 
been  shown  above,  the  appearance  of  this  construction  is  due  to  trans- 
lation. 

Therefore,  taking  all  these  criteria  into  consideration,  I  conclude  that 
the  De  Arithmetica  was  written  after  the  influence  of  translation  began 
to  make  itself  felt  and  before  it  became  paramount,  that  is,  just  before 
the  Com.  in  Categorias. 

Now  for  the  De  Musica.  The  quidem  collocations  place  it  later 
than  the  Dialogi.  The  same  may  be  said  of  oiim  as  compared  with 
nam.  So  also  of  porro,  porro  autem.  Namquc,  namque  postpositive, 
at  vero,  at  vcro  si,  quocirca  put  it  later  than  the  first  class.  So  also  the 
definite  article  (see  above,  pp.  126  f.).  Ergo,  que,  et,  ac,  atquc,  qucmad- 
modum,  quasi,  quare,  quo  fit,  quoniam,  quia,  quod,  and  sic  comj^ared 
with  ita  place  it  later  than  the  second  class.  Rursus  puts  it  later  than 
the  Dialogi.  Item  allies  it  with  the  third  period.  Accordingly,  on 
the  basis  of  these  facts,  I  conclude  that  the  De  Musica  was  written 
after  the  transitional  period  and  probably  along  with  the  works  on  the 
Topica. 

1  turn  now  to  the  De  Geometria.  As  regards  the  authenticity  of 
this  work  much  has  been  said  pro  and  con.  For  my  purpose  the 
most  suggestive  of  the  writers  on  this  subject  is  Professor  Rand;  for 
taking  a  hint  from  his  tests,  that  is,  the  quidem  collocations  and  itaque, 
igitur,  ergo,  he  conjectured  that  the  Interpretatio  was  by  Boethius  and 
that  the  Ars  was  spurious.  Georgius  Ernst  in  his  interesting  article 
entitled,  De  Gcometricis  illis  quae  sub  Boethii  nomine  nolds  tradita 
sunt  quaestiones,  1903,  agrees  with  Professor  Rand. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  Boethius      149 

My  collations  confirm  the  conclusions  of  these  scholars.  The  follow- 
ing tables  show  my  results. 

f  I  45 

Qiiidcni-vero    C^uidein-autem  Igitur        Ergo      Ilaque 

De  Geom.  Inter.   .5  3  21  i  i 

Ars o  o  19  12  6 

All  illative  particles  in  the  Ars  are  found  only  in  the  postpositive 
position,  a  phenomenon  appearing  elsewhere  only  in  the  De  Fide 
Catholica,  if  indeed  that  is  to  be  attributed  to  Boethius. 

If  the  Ars  is  by  Boethius,  Brandt,  to  be  consistent  with  his  argument 
in  regard  to  the  position  of  the  De  Mitsica  (see  below,  pp.  155  f.),  would 
hold  that  the  Ars  immediately  follows  the  De  Miisiea.  They  are  too 
divergent  in  style,  however,  to  admit  of  this  possibihty.  Cf.  these 
tables : 


4e 

pp. 

Que 

Et 

Ac 

Atque 

De  Musica 

.    .        89 

320 

621 

243 

220 

Are 

.    .        18 

ZZ 

103 
4T 

3 

2 

Quare 

Quapropter 

Quo 

Unde 

Quocirca 

De  Musica     . 

.    .          2 

0 

6 

IS 

21 

Ars 

.    .          0 

I 

0 

0 

0 

With  the  exception  of  quapropter,  particles  of  this  sort  are  not  found 
in  the  Ars. 

48 
Namque  Nam  Etenim  Enim 

De  Musica     ...  17  76  7  223 

Are I  2  8  II 

Etenim  in  the  Ars  is  always  postpositive.     This  is  not  true  in  the 
case  of  the  genuine  works. 


40 

50 

Hoc  est 

Id  est 

Ut 

Quoque 

Etiam 

De  Musica     . 

.    .            0 

171 

lOS 

59 

71 

Are 

.    .          17 

61 

I 

I 

II 

Causal  conjunctions 
Quoniam  Quia  Quod 

De  Musica     .    .    .  149  10  93 

Are 5  9  o 


150  ArtJiicr  Patch  McKi?ilay 

Theie  are  many  other  words  that  strike  the  eye  in  the  Ars  which  are 
almost  entirely  wanting  in  the  genuine  works,  e.  g. : 

Esto  age  ....  5  Esto  modo  .  .  .  i  Qua  de  re  .  .  .  i 
Hoc  pacto  ...  4  Protinus  ....  2  Videlicet  ....  10 
Modo  with  subj.    .     6         Ob  id I  Imprimis    ....     3 

Hence,  if  the  Ars  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Boethius,  it  is  abnormal  in  the 
extreme. 

This  divergence  in  style  is  seen  also  in  a  comparison  of  the  ways  in 
which  the  Ars  and  the  undisputed  works  introduce  illustrations,  demon- 
strations, tables,  e.g.  Ars,  p.  401,  11  f. :  ut  subiecta  docet  formula. 
There  are  twenty-eight  such  illustrations  in  the  Ars.  Of  these  only 
two  are  introduced  in  the  same  way.  In  the  undisputed  works  the 
number  is  ninety;  of  these  more  than  half  are  used  twice  at  least. 
Moreover,  these  collocations  are  much  more  wordy  in  the  Ars  than  in 
the  undisputed  works.  Also  only  one  ^  used  in  the  Ars  is  found  in  the 
undisputed  works,  whereas  more  than  half  of  those  used  in  any  of  the 
undisputed  works  are  met  in  the  other  writings.  This  fact  is  not  due  to 
any  difference  in  the  subject  matter ;  for  the  words  of  which  the  collo- 
cations are  formed  are  identical.  The  difference  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  are  more  involved  in  the  Ars.  The  following  will  illustrate.  Cf. 
De  Arte  Geometrica,  p.  419,  7  f.:  ut  infra  scripta  perspici  potest  in 
forma,  and  De  Musica,  p.  275,  25  :  id  patefaciet  subiecta  descriptio. 
In  the  Ars,  the  introductory  word  is  usually  a  pronoun,  adverb,  parti- 
ciple, or  verb,  e.  g.  in  the  preceding,  itifra,  an  adverb,  is  the  word  that 
refers  to  the  following  figure.  The  adverb  furnishes  40%  of  the 
instances  in  the  Ars,  but  only  3*/^  in  the  undisputed  works.  In  the 
undisputed  works  the  pronoun  is  the  favorite,  supplying  50%  of  the 
instances.     In  the  Ars  the  percentage  is  only  i6'|. 

As  for  participles,  the  same  words  appear  in  both  the  Ars  and  the  un- 
disputed works,  but  in  the  Ars  the  oblique  cases  prevail  over  the  nomi- 
native, whereas  in  the  genuine  writings  the  reverse  is  true.  Taking  all 
these  facts  into  consideration,  I  am  inclined,  therefore,  to  believe  that 
Boethius  did  not  write  the  Ars. 


'  Ars,  p.  392,  4:  ut  subiecta  descriptio  monet,  cf.  Dc  .l/iisii-n,  p.  246,  27.  Even 
this  solitary  instance  occurs  in  one  ijf  the  three  demonstrations  which  probably  are 
excerpts  from  the  .Irs  of  Boethius. 


Stylistic  Tests  and  Chronology  of  the  Works  of  liocthins      151 

Now  what  about  the  Interprctatio  ?  Though  the  available  tests  are 
necessarily  few,  yet  what  few  there  are  go  to  show  that  it  was  excerpted, 
at  least,  from  Boethius,  as  Professor  Rand  has  conjectured. 

The  first  test  that  merits  attention  is  this.  Boethius's  method  of 
translation,  that  is,  literal  transference  —  see  above,  p.  124  —  is  much 
in  evidence.  Here  are  some  examples.  Dc  Geomctria,  p.  390,  25  : 
quod  oportebat  facere  (oTrcp  I3ci  Troi^o-ai)  ;  cf.  Heiberg'  :  quod 
oportebat  fieri.  Again,  p.  3S6,  5  :  dupla  sunt  his  quadratis  (StTrAacrta 
ecTTi  Toi"   .   .   .  Terpayaivou)  ;  cf.  Heiberg,  duplo  maiora  sunt  quadrato. 

Again  dAAr/Aajv  is  turned  by  inviccm,  as  is  the  custom  with  Boethius. 
8ta  TO  is  turned  by  propter  quod  hoc,  a  phrase  very  common  in  Boethius ; 
see  above,  p.  126.     Such  constructions  are  wanting  in  the  Ars. 

In  leaving  the  Dc  Gcometria,  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Inter- 
prctatio  is  probably  genuine  and  that  the  Ars,  with  the  exception  of 
the  demonstrations,  pp.  390-92  (see  Ernst,  p.  24),  is  almost  certainly 
spurious. 

Turning  from  the  Intcfpretatio  Euclidis  to  the  other  translations,  I 
shall  not  need  to  discuss  the  Isagogc,  Categoriac,  and  ttc/si  'EpjaT^i/etas  ; 
for  their  respective  commentaries  determine  their  dates.  Of  the 
remainder,  the  following  tables  show  that  the  Aristotelis  Topica  and 
Sophistici  Elenchi  go  very  closely  together,  even  as  Brandt  has  argued. 


.52 

Causal  conjunctions 
pp.         Qiioniam    (i^uia         Quod 

Aris.  Top 95      50    102    131 

Soph.  Elench.  .  .   30     16    23     31 

Rursus    •*"* 
and  rursum     Amplius  Namque 

Aris.  Top 73  120  I 

Soph.  Elench.    .    .  14  22  o 

Vero  Sed  Autem 

Aris.  Top 127  206  I191 

Soph.  Elench.    .    .  62  126  401 

58 

Qiio       Unde  Quocirca    Quare 

Aris.  Top o  i  2  171 

Soph.  Elench.    .    .  o  i  o  50 


.5:t 

In  indirect  di: 

scourse 

Quoniam    Qiiia 

Quod 

159            2 

182 

24        0 

56 

555 

e          Nam 

Enim 

585 

525 

175 

106 

.57 

Itaquc       Igitur 

Ergo 

3           144 

34 

I            84 

1 1 

.50 

Quidem  Quidcm 

Quidcm 

sed          vero 

autem 

58 

305 

2               20 

97 

'  Heiberg  et  Menge,  Euclidis  Opera,  I,  p.  13,  17. 


152 


Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 


Therefore  the  Sophistici  Elenchi  probably  followed  close  upon  the  heels 
of  the  Topic  a. 

The  following  tables  will  lead  to  the  opposite  conclusion  in  regard 
to  the  two  Analytica. 


Rursus  ♦*<* 

»1 

pp.  and  nirsum    Iterum   Amplius 

Itaque    Igitur 

Ergo 

Priora  Anal.    .    , 

.     .             70 

97 

I 

31 

2 

81 

271 

Post.  Anal.      . 

•    .           47 

0 

35 

35 

21 

161 
«3 

37 

Namque 

Nam 

Enim 

Eo  quod 

Priora  Anal.    . 

.     .               0 

247 

484 

53 

Post.  Anal.      . 

.     .             18 

3 
04 

407 

5 

65 

With  in 

direct  discnurse 

C^ioniam 

Qjiia       C^iiod 

Sed; 

si      Si 

autem 

Si  vero 

Priora  Anal.    . 

•     •           319 

2 

8 

9 

8 

141 

Post.  Anal. 

.    .          88 

61            1 

[40 

7 

24 

18 

Ut 

Sicut 

06 

Quemad- 
inoduni 

Tanquam 

Priora  Anal.    . 

.    .         219 

2 

37 

I 

Post.  Anal.      . 

.    .         181 

69 

2 

16 

It  is  clear  that  these  two  works  differ  materially.  Professor  Brandt 
has  shown  that  the  former  was  translated  before  the  De  Sxllogismis 
Categoricis  appeared  and  probably  later  than  the  Hepl  'Epfi.r]v€ia<;, 
Editio  Prior.  The  Fosteriora  preceded  the  Cotn.  in  Ciceronis  Topica. 
From  the  preceding  tables  it  will  appear  that  there  was  a  considerable 
lapse  of  time  between  the  two  Ana/ytica,  bringing  the  Postcriora  into 
line  perhaps  with  the  Aristoielis  Topica  and  Sophistici  Elenchi.  This 
supposition  is  confirmed  by  one  striking  stylistic  peculiarity,  namely, 
the  use  of  utigue,  in  several  of  the  translations,  to  express  the  i)article 
O.V.  This  usage  appears  not  at  all  in  the  Isagoge,  once  in  the  Categoriae, 
not  at  all  in  the  Ilept  'Ep/Av^i/ctus,  once  in  the  Priora  Analytica,  but 
seventy-five  times  in  the  Postcriora,  twenty-four  in  Aristotle's  Topica, 
and  five  in  the  Sophistici  Elenchi.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  there  is 
an  intimate  connection  between  the  three  latter  works. 

The  Opusciila  Sacra  are  too  brief  definitely  to  be  placed  bv  our 
method.  I  think,  therefore,  that  Professor  Rand  was  a  little  hasty  in 
denying  the  Dc  Fide  to  Boethius  when  he  based  his  argument,  in  part, 
on  dissimilarity  in  style.      It  is  true,  wc   find   more  instances  of  itaque 


Stylistic  Tests  attii  L'/ironoli\<^v  of  the  Works  of  Bocthins      i  53 

than  we  should  expect  and,  what  b  even  more  significant,  this  particle 
is  always  postpositive,  a  condition  not  elsewhere  exemplified  in  Boethius 
save  in  the  spurious  Ars  Geomctria.  Vet  we  find  some  marked  Boethian 
traits,  e.g.  Dc  Fiiff,  1.  42,  ///  <////</,  cf.  ///  qiioniam,  Introductio  ad  Syl- 
lo^ismos  Cati'i:;oncos,  p.  774  v.,  Ilept  'Ep/Ar;mas,  Ed.  Sec,  p.  90,  29. 
This  collocation  arises  from  the  Clreek  ;  cf.  Arista tclis  Toxica,  955  h,  c 
and  often:  oiov  eVet'rrr///  quia.  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that 
Boethius  and  the  author  of  the  Dc  Fide  arrange  their  material  in  a 
similar  fashion ;  haeteniis  is  a  favorite  word  with  which  to  conclude  a 
paragraph.  Therefore,  relying  merely  on  stylistic  grounds  I  should 
hesitate  to  deny  the  De  Fide  to  Boethius. 

In  regard  to  the  other  Opuscula  suffice  it  to  say  that  a  comparison 
of  the  criteria  in  the  tabular  view  would  seem  to  place  them  later  than 
the  second  period.  If  so,  the  date^  512,  before  which  the  fifth  could 
not  well  have  been  written,  is  corroborated.  There  is  nothing  in  my 
results  to  substantiate  the  view  of  Usener-  and  others  that  the  Opuscula 
Sacra  are  merely  youthful  exercises  of  Boethius. 

Having  thus  traversed  the  whole  series  of  Boethius's  extant  writings,  I 
may  briefly  recapitulate  the  results  of  this  examination.  The  so-called 
stylistic  method  is  a  recognized  form  of  investigation,  applied  notably  in 
the  case  of  Plato.  In  any  stylistic  study  of  Boethius  two  traits  must  be 
taken  into  account.  There  is,  first,  the  influence  of  translation  on  his 
style.  Translation  tends  to  explain  new  phenomena  in  style.  It  tends 
to  unification  of  vocabulary.  Its  influence  is  more  transient  than  one 
might  anticipate.    The  second  trait  is  Boethius's  marked  desire  for  variety. 

Bearing  these  influences  in  mind  and  basing  my  study  on  Professor 
Brandt's  researches  as  a  framework,  I  have  shown  that  works  of  a  given 
period  agree  and  works  of  a  different  period  disagree.  Then  I  classified 
them  stylistically,  giving  up  Professor  Brandt's  classification,  based  on 
subject  matter.  I  have  shown  that  my  criteria  fit  in  exactly  with  all  the 
argimients,  inductive  and  deductive,  that  Professor  Brandt  has  formu- 
lated. Barring  the  dubious  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis,  the  sole  excep- 
tion is  offered  by  the  works  on  the  quadrivium.  There  is  a  reasonable 
doubt  concerning  the  place  of  these  works.     If  my  criteria  have  stood 


'  Hildebrand,  Boethius  und seine  SlcUung  zum  Chrisientume,  1885,  p.  249  ff. 
*  Anecdoton  Holderi,  p.  54  f.     See  Rand,  op.  cit.,  p.  436. 


154  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

the  test  in  other  respects  may  we  not  with  confidence  rely  on  them  to 
place  the  De  Arithmctica  and  Dc  Miisica?  Doing  so,  I  have  shown 
that  these  two  works  manifestly  disagree ;  that  this  disagreement  is  not 
necessarily  due  to  a  difference  in  subject  matter  and  that  it  cannot  be 
attributed  to  a  difference  in  sources.  I  have  also  shown  that  the  De 
Miisica  differs  too  much  from  the  Dialoi^i  immediately  to  precede  it. 
Following  my  tests,  I  have  placed  the  De  Arithmctica  at  the  close  of 
the  transitional  period  and  the  De  Miisica  in  vhe  third  period. 

As  to  other  works,  the  peculiar  style  of  the  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis 
is  not  such  as  to  endanger  the  whole  fabric  of  my  argument,  whether 
we  call  Book  I  spurious  and  Book  II  a  part  of  the  Introductio  ad  Syl- 
logismos  Catcgoricos,  or  see  in  the  work  as  it  stands  a  sort  of  rough 
compendium  which  our  author  later  reworked  into  the  Introductio. 
The  De  Divisione  is  to  be  allied  with  the  works  of  the  second  period 
rather  than  later.  The  Introductio  ad  Syllogismos  Catcgoricos,  though 
belonging  to  the  second  period,  shows  affinities  with  the  third.  As  to 
the  De  Geometria,  the  Interpretatio  is  probably  genuine,  whereas  the 
Ars  is  spurious.  Aristotle's  Topica  and  the  Sophistici  Elenchi  are 
intimately  connected.  The  Posterioi-a  Analytica  is  to  be  placed  closely 
with  these  and  considerably  later  than  the  Prioj-a.  Lastly,  stylistic 
tests  are  too  few  to  settle  the  genuineness  of  the  De  Fide  Catholica. 

To  conclude  this  summary,  I  present  a  complete  scheme  of  the 
extant  works.  Transitional  period  :  Dialogi  in  Porphyriuni ;  Com.  in 
Porphyrium ;  De  Arithmctica.  Greek  period :  Com.  in  Categorias 
(510  A.D.),  Ilept  'Ep/i,r;va'as,  Editio  Prior;  Priora  Analytica;  IIcpi 
*EpfjLr]veLa<: ,  Editio  Secunda  ;  De  Divisione  ;  Introductio  ad  Syllogismos 
Catcgoricos ;  De  Syllogismis  Categoricis,  lib.  II  (///'.  I  possibly  spurious)  ; 
De  Syllogismis  Hypotheticis.  Ciceronian  period  :  Posteriora  Analytica, 
Aristotle's  Topica,  Sophistici  Elenchi,  De  Musica,  Interpretatio  Euclidis'^ 
(Ars  Geo  me  trie  a  is  spurious).  Com.  in  Cicero  nis  Topica,  Dc  Differcnfiis 
Topicis,  Opuscula  Sacra  I,  II,  III,  V  (IV  is  uncertain).  I^st  period  : 
Consolatio  Philosophtae  (523/4). 

In  the  beginning  of  my  paper  I  implied  that  any  such  study  as  I 
have  undertaken,  to  be  of  value,  must  serve  to  give  us  a  deeper  insight 


'  I  assume  this  place  for  the  Interpretatio  Eiiclidis,  though  as  far  as  my  data  are 
concerned  it  may  have  come  later. 


Stylistic  Tis/s  aiui  Chrotioloiji;}'  oj  the  Works  of  Bocthiiis      i  55 

into  the  character  of  our  author.  What  have  the  present  results  con- 
tributed to  this  end?  One  thing  at  least.  If  the  Df  Arithinctica  and 
De  Musica  were  not  written  first  of  Boethius's  works  nor  together,  we 
must  place  a  new  estimate  on  our  author's  temperament  and  habits. 
The  current  idea  is  well  expressed  in  the  words  of  Professor  IJraiidt,^ 


'  Since  this  article  went  to  the  printer  Brandt  has  issued  his  critical  edition  of  the 
works  on  Porphyry  {^Boctliii  in  Isngoi^cn  J\>rp/iyrii  Co/ninenfa,  1906).  Aside  from 
the  text  there  is  a  valuable  introduction.  Brandt's  comparison  of  the  two  editions  is 
especially  good.  Brandt  holds  to  his  former  position  that  the  works  on  the  quadrivium 
must  precede  those  on  Porphyry.  Noting  that  Boethius,  M.,  p.  70  D,  proposes  a  com- 
prehensive study  of  Aristotle's  works  on  logic,  he  thinks  that  we  should  have  had  a 
reference  to  the-Z'if  Arithmetica  if  Boethius  had  intended  also  to  treat  of  the  quadri- 
vium. But  observe,  once  more,  that  Boethius  nowhere  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to 
take  up  Cicero's  Topica,  to  which  he  later  turned.  Brandt  also  believes  that  a  man, 
so  propositi  tcitacissimus  as  our  author,  could  not  have  broken  into  his  interpretation  of 
Aristotle  by  interposing  works  on  the  quadrivium.  And  yet  Brandt  himself  has  pointed 
out  a  similar  circumstance.  In  the  passage  referred  to  above,  Boethius  proposes  to 
take  up  Aristotle's  logic.     Nothing  is  said  about  a  second  commentary  on  Porphyry. 

Brandt  also  recurs  to  the  scarcity  of  quidem  collocations  in  the  first  commentary  on 
Porphyry.  He  thinks  that  although  Boethius  may  have  used  them  in  earlier  works, 
yet  he  may  have  laid  them  aside,  for  the  time  being,  not  meeting  with  them  in 
Victorinus's  translation  of  Porphyry.  As  a  parallel,  Brandt  adduces  the  use  of  porro 
auteni.  This  occurs  24  times  (Brandt's  figures)  in  the  first  commentary  on  Porphyry, 
rarely  elsewhere  (see  table,  pp.  138  f.).  He  supposes  that  Boethius,  noticing  the 
solitary  instance  in  Victorinus's  translation,  with  a  few  more  that  may  have  dropped 
out  of  our  text,  took  a  notion  to  porro  aulein  and  used  it  freely,  later  abandoning  it. 
Now  this  is  exactly  the  sort  of  evidence  to  which  I  have  been  appealing  in  this  discus- 
sion. We  are  concerned,  first,  with  noting  genuine  peculiarities,  and  then,  if  we  can, 
with  explaining  them.  Brandt's  explanations  might  perhaps  suffice  here,  if  other 
criteria  did  not  clearly  place  the  Dial,  in  Porph.  and  the  De  Arithmetica  in  the  first 
period,  but  the  De  Musica  in  the  third.  It  is  therefore  more  natural  to  account  for 
the  rarity  of  qtiidetn  in  the  Dial,  in  Porph.  on  the  ground  that  this  work  precedes 
Boethius's  translations.  A  different  cause,  as  explained  above,  operates  in  the  De 
Syllog.  Cat.,  of  which  Book  I  may  be  spurious.  Instances  of  sporadic  preferences, 
like  porro  autem,  may  be  noted  in  all  the  works  of  Boethius.  These  are  interesting 
to  obser\-e,  but  I  have  cited  only  such  peculiarities  as  illustrate  a  constant  use  or 
some  marked  development.  Brandt's  discussion  of  ijuidciii  and  porro  autem  shows 
that  he  believes  such  evidence  worthy  of  consideration.  In  the  light  of  many  more 
phenomena  of  the  same  nature,  considered  in  the  same  way,  I  venture  to  draw  a 
different  conclusion  from  his.  I  cannot  agree,  therefore,  that  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  De  Syll.  Cat.  should  oblige  us  to  abandon  the  stylistic  method  in  our  efforts  to 


156  Arthur  Patch  McKinlay 

which  I  take  from  a  personal  letter  to  me.  "  Nondum  persuadere  mihi 
possum  Boethium  cum  iam  diu  secundum  propositum  suum  ad  libros 
organi  Aristotelici  Latine  tractandos  et  ad  artem  logicam  et  dialecticam 
exponendam  operam  suam  contulisset,  ad  artem  musicam  explicandam 
redisse  quae  pars  esset  quadrivii."  In  other  words,  we  are  asked  to 
hold  of  Boethius  what  Schleiermacher  held  of  Plato,  namely,  that  a 
man's  life  work  is  in  embryo  in  the  youth ;  that  we  must  expect  no 
deviation  from  the  plan  outlined  by  our  author  in  his  second  edition  of 
the  Ilept  'Ep/xr;vctas,  p.  79,  10-80,  I  :  "haec  fixa  sententia  est,  ut  .  .  . 
ego  omne  Aristotelis  opus  .  .  .  transferam  atque  etiam  .  .  .  omnes 
Platonis  dialogos  vertendo  vel  etiam  commentando  in  Latinam  redigam 
formam."  Though  these  words  seem  to  substantiate  Professor  Brandt's 
conclusion,  yet  it  were  rash  to  deny  that  some  outside  interest  might 
intrude  for  a  time  —  in  fact  we  know  that  this  was  the  case  with 
Boethius.  For  all  must  concede  that  before  he  had  carried  out  his 
plan  of  translating  and  perhaps  of  commenting  on  all  the  works  of 
Aristotle  and  Plato,  he  had  begun  to  work  on  Cicero.  In  the  same 
way,  he  may  have  undertaken  the  De  Miisica  as  a  parergon. 


determine  the  chronology  of  the  works  of  Boethius.  On  the  contrary,  as  I  have 
indicated,  this  aberrant  work  may  confirm,  perhaps  decisively,  the  validity  of  the 
method. 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration   of  loan  period. 


Ki--^  ^'    "" 

''^^2^, 

M\    1'65-3PW 

SJl  29 

SENT  ON  ru. 

U  Apr'52AI 

0CT2'i1996 

U.  C.  BERKELEY 

5^pr'eo?w 

IN  STACKS 

MAR  22  1960 

REG'D  LD      . 

fm^^Wi 

\U  STACKS 

FEB  111965 

75m-7,'30 

U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 

'fIVlTllfti' 

I  III  mil   III  ill  I  n|  ill  II  iilill  mil  n  il  I 


<:DM4Dm3'^M 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


•■NJff 


